The Military Instrument Of National Power

Throughout history, many powerful nations interfered with nations that were weaker than they were. This form of sabotaging a nation is economic, political or cultural life is called as imperialism. Imperialism is often separated into two sects. The first one is old imperialism, which was the period from the 1500s to the 1800s, where European nation started to colonize many areas such as the Americas, and parts of Southeast Asia. On the other hand, the new imperialism was the period between the years “1870-1914”, where Europe became more focused on expanding their land into Asia and Africa. Imperialism had many pros and cons. In addition, it also had many causes led by the feeling of nationalism.

Another instrument of US national power is military. This can be done through peacekeeping missions and security assistance. And the final US National Power is Economic power. This is accomplished through trade laws and economic sanctions.

He quotes, “The history of sea power is, largely, though by no means solely, a narrative of contests between nations, of mutual rivalries, of violence frequently culminating in war.” Mahan saw sea power as thoroughly intertwined with war. His argument was that a great navy was essential for national prosperity through military and economic expansion.

A) The title of the book is The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War and the author is Andrew Bacevich. The book was published in New York, New York by the publisher Oxford University Press in the year 2005. It is the first edition and contains 270 pages.

The United States is a militaristic country because of the military budget, the military’s expansion into civilian areas, and military culture. The large and increasing budget of the military is an example of U.S. militarism. According to National Priorities

Comprehending the underlying authority for the President of the United States to authorize the international use of military operations in order to respond to an attack or as a counter-terrorism strategy, may be difficult to fathom for those who are not familiar with practices and philosophies associated in this realm. Conducting military operations against the Taliban government in Afghanistan, detaining suspected terrorists, both indefinitely domestically and abroad, and the use of unmanned drones to disrupt and destroy suspected terrorists and those aiding them in areas such as Pakistan fall under the umbrella of what the US has been able to accomplish in our last 12 years during the Global War on Terror.

In the book “ For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States from 1607 to 2012” by Allan R. Millett , Peter Maslowski, and William B. Feis tell their readers about all the major historical events that occurred in the United States and how they either brought up or brought down the United States later in the future. The authors organize the book by listing the historic events in chronological order. The authors built the structure of the book by using a large vocabulary and by having a formal tone in order to catch their audience attention which are professors and/or students. The purpose of this book is to inform and educate others on the major historic events that occurred in the United States so that they will have a better understanding on the events that built up the Unites States.

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

The Continental Army under the command of George Washington, while in the midst of the war on the British during the American Revolutionary war, employed militia as a supplementary force to help defeat their adversary. The hybrid threat here exists within the relationship between a conventional force (the Continental Army) and an unconventional force (the militia). Now, the hybrid threat text says that militia closely resembles or parallels the definition of paramilitary, but can also be an extension of a nation-state’s armed forces as well. In either case, the hybrid threat exists.

Every four years when a president is elected into office, no matter the country, it is vital that the running is fair and follows the rules set out by the country. However, when writing about such a topic it is also important to view all sides of the potential argument and provide evidence that both discredits the opposing view and supports the point the author is attempting to prove. This allows the reader to know that every possibility has been researched and both sides have been viewed, but that the author is correct when stating their stance on the matter.

Within days of Iraqi forces invading Kuwait in 1990, President Bush publicly backed the United Nations’ (UN) stance on the incursion with four national strategic objectives and determined that, ‘if invited, US forces would be deployed to deter further Iraqi attacks, defend Saudi Arabia and enforce UN resolutions.’ From the national strategic objectives, the military end-state is deduced. The military end-state is a conceptual element of operational design which describes the conditions that forces must achieve to attain strategic objectives/ hand over main effort responsibilities. The military end-state does not necessarily indicate the end of a military activities to attain national objectives. While one specific national objective would not

World War I saw the nations involved rallied into two major alliances in order to curb German’s increasing power. It is evident that German amassing too much power poses a threat to the security of its counterparts in an anarchic system. As a result, other countries were willing to use various means not only to mitigate the risks but also maintain their independence in the world’s political structure. The balance of power theory focuses on how countries can achieve a balance and international order. The causes of World War one can be attributed to the balance of power mechanisms used by the countries involved.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

The military revolution was a direct outcome of changes in the virtuosity of war between 1560 and 1660. The changes crucially influenced campaigning and combat in Europe during the late 17th and early 18th centuries. The most influential alterations included transformation in weapons, growth in the army size, change in tactics and organization, and centralization of the states’ bureaucracies. There were many battles in the late 17th and early 18th centuries that were highly influenced by the implications of the military revolution, for example, the Battles of Hogue, Danube, and Blenheim. These altercations started a development for military superiority and increased proficiency that enabled Europe to dominate the world long after the Wars of the Spanish Succession. However, I would like to emphasize that those victories mentioned above were heavily influenced by the skills of the commanding individuals and their roles in the military organizational system rather than a full internalization of the revolution’s implications overall. The Duke of Marlborough is a great example of an individual overweighting the flaws of the late 17th century logistical systems to his advantage. By comparison, France’s failure to understand and implement the alterations eventually enabled the rise of Britain’s at the French expense.

Alfred T. Mahan – Argued that the nation’s economic future hinged on gaining new markets abroad. In his view, the United States need a powerful navy to protect these markets from foreign rivals. Established “naval power=economic power”.